Disgusting Barrister Dr Christopher To Sacked by HKU for Offensive Sex Comments in Class
Disgusting Barrister Dr Christopher To Sacked by HKU for Offensive Sex Comments in Class
https://hongkongfp.com/2017/09
The University of Hong Kong has replaced an instructor following student complaints related to rape comments he made in class.
In an email dated September 18 obtained by HKFP, the Department of Law told students taking the Law of Evidence class that it had “received student complaints concerning the comments made by the instructor in the context of rape and his subsequent reaction in class to the complaints.”
According to an audio recording submitted to HKFP by a student complainant, the instructor, Christopher To had been discussing the topic of prejudicial evidence. He gave an example whereby a rape victim boasted on Facebook that she had slept with a hundred men and taken part in group sex. He said the accused would claim the woman was “open” and “loose,” as the judge considered whether the evidence was admissible. To then suggested that the situation could be incitement of rape.
“Doesn’t mean when she’s wearing a short skirt she’s asking for it, but if she’s doing [a lot of] incitement, encouraging people that she likes to do all this stuff, the defence would say that is good evidence: ‘The fact that I didn’t really want to do it, she was encouraging me to do it. As you know, I’m just a man, I get hungry… should I not [act] if she’s throwing herself at me?’”
A second student, who spoke to HKFP on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the account.
The Department apologised to “everyone who was made uncomfortable by the comments” and announced its decision to replace To with another instructor after careful consideration.
To was previously director of Zero Carbon Building Limited and Executive Director of the Construction Industry Council, according to his Linkedin profile.
He was also the Secretary General of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre.
The classes took place on September 6 and September 13.
‘You assess me, I assess you’
According to the recordings and transcripts provided by a third student, To pledged not to mention “sexual things” following complaints about his first lecture. He said that it was not his fault if the students did not know anything about such topics. To added that the case he mentioned was a real one and that the defence brought evidence from Facebook to show that a rape victim was “asking for it” because she slept with many people.
“You know what the judge said? This evidence cannot be admitted. My key thing I was trying to convey was: information on the internet under section 22A of the Evidence Ordinance sometimes doesn’t apply.” He said students had an “emotional attachment” to those cases, and he would not mention them anymore.
In the clips, To complains that he “wasted” his time speaking to the head of department for an hour about the case. He further stated he had an IT degree and claimed he had noted down the accounts of the people who were on social media during class. Therefore, he would have evidence that those students were not listening, when they asked him why they do not have A+ grades: “You assess me, I assess you,” he said. To also mentioned that he would sit on the board of PCLL – meaning the legal qualification exam.
我們是一群香港大學法律博士 (Juris Doctor) 學生，曾被港大法律系前講師陶榮博士（Dr. Christopher To）在離職前教過兩節證據法課堂。對於陶博士有關強姦案的言論，我們並無補充。但有見陶博士被校方撤換一事引起公眾討論，我們希望詳述在堂上的第一身觀察，為校方撤換講師的決定提供更多背景。我們亦希望回應近日網上對事件的不少批評，如早前一篇文章《港大法律系講師被撤換爭議 一名港大法律系舊生的回應》。在短短兩節課堂中，我們發現陶博士似乎不但對他所教授的科目欠缺充分認識，更屢有違反教學操守之嫌，早前其有關強姦案的言論或只屬冰山一角。
缺乏基本法律知識
在他的證據法課堂上，陶博士似乎連一般基本香港法律知識也欠奉。當討論誤殺罪名時，陶博士竟誤以為若被告因精神錯亂殺害他人，法庭會由謀殺罪改判為誤殺罪。然而，根據《刑事訴訟程序條例》第74條，若被告因精神錯亂殺害他人，被告會被判「因精神錯亂而無罪」(not guilty by reason of insanity) 的特別裁決，並多被送往精神病院治療（註一）。當有同學質疑其立場之準確性時，陶博士表示普通法一直在演變，未來或能變成與其主張一致。然而，有同學再指出精神錯亂的免責辯護以《刑事訴訟條例》為基礎，並不完全隸屬普通法，難以動輒如陶博士所說的「演變」。陶博士則回應說，他的主張在其他國家如俄羅斯及日本等或會成立，並批評學生思想狹隘，只在乎香港法律上的正確立場。更令人訝異的是，陶博士亦誤把行政法中用以衡量行政機關政策合理性的Wednesbury原則，當作是憲法中合理關聯性測試 (Rational Connection) 的其中一部分，實在讓人啼笑皆非。
在陶博士堂上使用的PowerPoint中（附於文末），我們發現大量內容來自可靠性成疑的網頁，包括維基百科、「PCLL Conversion notes」、「Law Teacher」及「Swarb」，並由網頁一字不漏地原文複製在其課堂講義上，文中亦未有註明來源及原作者。此等行為若發生在學生身上，定已明確構成剽竊行為，會被大學按規定嚴厲處分。更重要的是，陶博士似乎未曾細閱這些由可疑網頁複製下來的資料，以致PowerPoint幾處自相矛盾，讓學生混淆不清。例如，陶博士的課堂講義其中一個段落指某刑事案中的被告成功上訴，並獲法庭頒令重審，但同一段落尾端又聲稱案件並無重審。
多次發表不當言論
在兩節課堂中，陶博士均對班上同學發表不少冒犯性言論。如當陶博士討論證據的分量 (weight of evidence) 時，曾問及一位女同學是否認為自己有「體重問題」(weight problem)。另外，他又指著點名冊上一位韓籍女同學的照片，聲稱她容貌看起來跟照片「不一樣」。對於早前在LLB課堂上有關強姦案的言論，陶博士尚可能辯解為與案例相關。然而，上述這些針對個別同學的冒犯性言論，明顯與教學內容無關，讓人難以想像有任何合理解釋。
「You scratch my back I scratch yours」
在學期首周，校方接獲大量有關陶博士的投訴。陶博士及後把課堂參與 (Class Participation) 加入評分標準中，並在堂上暗示同學如再向大學投訴將會有後果，又多次強調「如你幫我，我也會幫你 (you scratch my back, I scratch yours) 」。然而，事實上我們僅僅要求一位稱職的老師，能夠公正地評核我們的表現，可惜陶博士似乎並未能做到以上兩點。
Comments
Post a Comment